Hi Steven, very sorry to have missed the Jira notifications, just checked now after read your email. Sorry! :(
I thought the idea was adding JMX support directly on factory/pool and not on Configuration, btw not being JMX expert this will be a good chance to learn... I'll fill a new Jira issue for adding thread safety support on configuration classes, and start to study how to do it in the best way. I like the Builder idea, my +1 for that, take it in consideration as already done :P Have a nice day and thanks for the feedbacks! Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Steven Siebert <smsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Simone, > > You have two +1's waiting for you in the JIRA comments =) > > My comments from tracker: > > "I took a look at this last night but didn't get a chance to comment =) > > I like the patch, I believe this does indeed satisfy the issue. > > One question I have, since we're eliminating the primitive configuration > properties within the pool/factory classes, we're making the Config objects > publicly accessible, and possibly accessing through JMX is the idea of > making the Config objects thread-safe. This would certainly reduce the need > to have to externally synchronize (and possibly introduce bugs) every time. > > Another issue we probably need to open another ticket for is to deprecate > the constructors we've eliminated in 1.5. > > Last suggestion/question is about making inner (public static final) Builder > pattern classes within the concrete Config classes (and possibly defining an > abstract <T extends Abstract*Config> create() method in the Abstract class). > This would further simplify the programmatic creation of the Config classes. > > Thoughts? > > +1 on Simones patch...we can add any of the above after it has been > committed." > > > Respectfully, > > > Steve > > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Simone Tripodi > <simone.trip...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi all mates, >> I updated the jira issue uploading my patch; it contains the >> configuration extraction and some code modification. >> IMHO we shouldn't replicate the same data in both configuration AND >> factory/pool, when creating the factory/pool it is enough storing the >> configuration reference, just use it. >> I intentionally missed the interfaces layer, since they can be added >> directly in the JMX support in the required form. >> Please take a look at the patch and provide feedbacks, if you agree I >> could start committing the modifications and proceed on JMX support. >> Have a nice day, >> Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Gary Gregory >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Steven Siebert [mailto:smsi...@gmail.com] >> >> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:08 >> >> To: Commons Developers List >> >> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config >> >> >> >> Gary, >> >> >> >> Great work so far. I'm checking out the diffs now, I'm gonna hack out >> some >> >> simple UML "diffs", if only to wrap my head around it all. I'll upload >> the >> >> file to the issue once complete. >> >> >> >> BTW, I hope I didn't offend with the 'academic' comment, I >> >> most certainly did not intend to infer that there weren't functional >> >> importances to this issue. I was mostly trying to delineate the two >> issues >> >> in my mind, and putting it to "paper" was a good way to do that =) >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> S >> > >> > Hi Steven, >> > >> > No offense even considered from this end :) >> > >> > I'm glad we are going through this exercise. This will improve the >> software I am sure. >> > >> > Gary >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Gary Gregory >> >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com>wrote: >> >> >> >> > > -----Original Message----- >> >> > > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] >> >> > > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 06:29 >> >> > > To: Commons Developers List >> >> > > Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config >> >> > > >> >> > > On 10/21/10, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > it seems you've been doing a very good work, the only thing I >> *suggest* >> >> > is >> >> > > > >> >> > > > * simplifying the mutable/immutable interfaces, one interface for >> >> > > > already known common (im)mutable fields should be enough; >> >> > > > * adding/renaming the interfaces with the <PoolName>`MBean` >> postfix to >> >> > > > be ready for JMX support; >> >> > > > >> >> > > > btw it seems you're now much more deep inside the topic than me ;) >> >> > > > >> >> > > > WDYT? >> >> > > > Simo >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > Sorry I have been a little slow on this. I will have a careful look >> >> > > this eve. Based on a very quick review, I am +1 on the idea and >> >> > > approach to separate mutable / immutable. Also +1 for JMX support. >> >> > > Two quick things to keep top of mind: >> >> > > >> >> > > 1. Please make sure not to lose documentation. Whatever is >> >> > > documented today in protected field / internal getters / setters >> docs >> >> > > needs to be carried forward. >> >> > >> >> > Check. I did not check as I refactored that Javadocs were in the right >> >> > places. That would be a requirement for a real patch. I only meant >> this as >> >> > an experiment that went a lot further than I thought. >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > 2. Somewhat related - I am fine just plowing ahead for now using >> >> > > existing API concepts, but some of those concepts are anachronistic >> or >> >> > > broken, IMO, so we may later decide to revamp much of the >> "accounting" >> >> > > aspects of the API. That we should and will discuss on other >> >> > > threads. One thing that might be good to think about at this point, >> >> > > however, is getting rid of primitive properties (we started that >> with >> >> > > whenExhaustedAction). I think there is a DBCP issue on this raised >> by >> >> > > Dain a couple of years ago. >> >> > >> >> > It would be nice to track this someplace, I am not sure if Javadoc is >> the >> >> > right place. >> >> > >> >> > Gary >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > Thanks all for moving this along! >> >> > > >> >> > > Phil >> >> > > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> >> > > > http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Gary Gregory >> >> > > > <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- >> >> > > >>> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com] >> >> > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 22:41 >> >> > > >>> To: Commons Developers List >> >> > > >>> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> Hi Gary! >> >> > > >>> unfortunately the link replied with 404 code, can you give me >> please >> >> > > >>> the issue ID? >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> It's https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-173 >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> I've updated the diff file a couple of times since my initial >> msg. >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> Gary >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >>> Many thanks in advance, have a nice day!!! >> >> > > >>> Simo >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> >> > > >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Gary Gregory >> >> > > >>> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> > > >>> > Hi Simone, >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > Please see my experiment in progress here >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12457710/pool2config.diff >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > Gary Gregory >> >> > > >>> > Senior Software Engineer >> >> > > >>> > Rocket Software >> >> > > >>> > 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 * Atlanta, GA 30326 * USA >> >> > > >>> > Tel: +1.404.760.1560 >> >> > > >>> > Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com >> >> > > >>> > Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> > > >>> >> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com] >> >> > > >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 14:53 >> >> > > >>> >> To: Commons Developers List >> >> > > >>> >> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> Hi, >> >> > > >>> >> sorry for not having been clear, but in my previous email my >> >> > intent >> >> > > >>> >> was saying that depending on how we manage the Config class, >> it >> >> > could >> >> > > >>> >> influence de JMX support design, nothing more, and since I'm >> not >> >> > > >>> >> expert on JMX I was waiting for feedbacks from who knows more >> than >> >> > me >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> About Gary's question, I had the following thought >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> AbstractGenericObjectPoolConfig >> >> > > >>> >> - int maxIdle >> >> > > >>> >> - int minIdle >> >> > > >>> >> - int maxActive >> >> > > >>> >> - long maxWait >> >> > > >>> >> - WhenExhaustedAction whenExhaustedAction >> >> > > >>> >> - boolean testOnBorrow >> >> > > >>> >> - boolean testOnReturn >> >> > > >>> >> - boolean testWhileIdle >> >> > > >>> >> - long timeBetweenEvictionRunsMillis >> >> > > >>> >> - int numTestsPerEvictionRun >> >> > > >>> >> - long minEvictableIdleTimeMillis >> >> > > >>> >> - boolean lifo >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> GenericObjectPoolConfig extends >> AbstractGenericObjectPoolConfig >> >> > > >>> >> - long softMinEvictableIdleTimeMillis >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> GenericKeyedObjectPoolConfig extends GenericObjectPoolConfig >> >> > > >>> >> - int maxTotal >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> About the pools: >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> class GenericObjectPool { >> >> > > >>> >> + GenericObjectPool(GenericObjectPoolFactory factory) { >> >> > > >>> >> this(factory, new GenericObjectPoolConfig()); >> >> > > >>> >> } >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> + GenericObjectPool(GenericObjectPoolFactory factory, >> >> > > >>> >> GenericObjectPoolConfig config) {...} >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> + GenericObjectPoolConfig getConfig() {...} >> >> > > >>> >> } >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> same thing for the Keyed version. >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> Too simple and stupid? Maybe. But reduces the redundancies to >> 0. >> >> > > >>> >> Moreover I'm not sure it is just an academical way to >> approach the >> >> > > >>> >> issue, I'm sure it is more than pragmatic, simplifying the >> >> > > >>> >> maintainability and makes easier keep in synch the Pool and >> >> > related >> >> > > >>> >> Factory configuration. >> >> > > >>> >> Just my 2 cents, now off to bed due my local timezone :P >> >> > > >>> >> Simo >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> >> > > >>> >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Gary Gregory >> >> > > >>> >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> > > >>> >> > So I am doing an experimental refactoring to see what the >> code >> >> > would >> >> > > >>> >> > look >> >> > > >>> >> like with a Config class extracted and I ran into the >> following. >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> > The class GenericObjectPool has an >> >> > _softMinEvictableIdleTimeMillis >> >> > > >>> >> > ivar >> >> > > >>> but >> >> > > >>> >> the equivalent GenericKeyedObjectPool does not. >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> > Is that a little hole in implementation that could have >> been >> >> > avoided >> >> > > >>> >> > with >> >> > > >>> a >> >> > > >>> >> common classes used for config? Even if >> GenericKeyedObjectPool >> >> > would >> >> > > >>> >> throw >> >> > > >>> a >> >> > > >>> >> "not implemented" exception. >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> > Thoughts? >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> > Gary Gregory >> >> > > >>> >> > Senior Software Engineer >> >> > > >>> >> > Rocket Software >> >> > > >>> >> > 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 * Atlanta, GA 30326 * USA >> >> > > >>> >> > Tel: +1.404.760.1560 >> >> > > >>> >> > Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com >> >> > > >>> >> > Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> > > >>> >> >> From: Simone Tripodi [mailto:simone.trip...@gmail.com] >> >> > > >>> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:22 >> >> > > >>> >> >> To: Commons Developers List >> >> > > >>> >> >> Subject: Re: [pool] Reusing Config >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> sure, I always wait for feedbacks before coding :P Cool >> >> > expression >> >> > > >>> >> >> "Rambo through the code", that was the first time I read >> it and >> >> > > >>> >> >> made >> >> > > >>> >> >> me laugh :D >> >> > > >>> >> >> All the best, >> >> > > >>> >> >> Simo >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> >> > > >>> >> >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Gary Gregory >> >> > > >>> >> >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> > > >>> >> >> > It seems to me there is a reason the code is the way it >> is so >> >> > I'd >> >> > > >>> really >> >> > > >>> >> >> like to hear thoughts from some of the original authors >> before >> >> > we >> >> > > >>> >> >> go and >> >> > > >>> >> Rambo >> >> > > >>> >> >> through the code ;) >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Gary >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> >> > On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:13, "Simone Tripodi" >> >> > > >>> >> >> > <simone.trip...@gmail.com> >> >> > > >>> >> >> wrote: >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> Hi Gary, >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> yes that's me that raised the question[1] and discussed >> a >> >> > little >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> with >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> Seb. What blocked me was the JMX support proposal since >> I'm >> >> > not >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> familiar with that technology, so I was consulting >> >> > documentation >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> to >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> study. >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> My very big +1 for that, with the wish of work directly >> on >> >> > that >> >> > > >>> stuff. >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> Anyone else has a different thought, before proceeding? >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> Simo >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/q4y7ghux57s7hk6v >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Gary Gregory >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> In the same department, I see the following ivars: >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> lifo : boolean >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> maxActive : int >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> maxIdle : int >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> maxTotal : int >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> maxWait : long >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> minEvictableIdleTimeMillis : long >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> minIdle : int >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> numTestsPerEvictionRun : int >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> testOnBorrow : boolean >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> testOnReturn : boolean >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> testWhileIdle : boolean >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> timeBetweenEvictionRunsMillis : long >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> whenExhaustedAction : WhenExhaustedAction >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> defined in four classes: >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> GenericKeyedObjectPool >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> GenericKeyedObjectPoolFactory >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> GenericObjectPool >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> GenericObjectPoolFactory >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Which feels to me like a missed opportunity to avoid >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> duplication. >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Is making one ivar private or final or volatile be >> applied >> >> > to >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> all >> >> > > >>> four >> >> > > >>> >> >> classes? >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> We could: >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Use a config object instead of the 13 ivars. >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Or a common superclass then we can consider if it >> should >> >> > hold >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> the >> >> > > >>> ivar >> >> > > >>> >> >> list or a Config object. >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Would it be too weird to have a common super class for >> >> > > >>> BaseObjectPool >> >> > > >>> >> and >> >> > > >>> >> >> BasePoolableObjectFactory for example? >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Gary Gregory >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Senior Software Engineer >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Rocket Software >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 . Atlanta, GA 30326 . >> USA >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560 >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> From: Gary Gregory [mailto: >> ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com] >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:29 >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> To: Commons Developers List >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Subject: [pool] Reusing Config >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Hi All: >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> I think this came up recently. Any thoughts or plans >> on >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> extracting >> >> > > >>> the >> >> > > >>> >> >> Config >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> class out of GenericKeyedObjectPool and >> GenericObjectPool >> >> > so >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> it can >> >> > > >>> be >> >> > > >>> >> >> reused. >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> The constants for default values could then also be >> moved >> >> > to >> >> > > >>> Config. >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Gary Gregory >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Senior Software Engineer >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Rocket Software >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 * Atlanta, GA 30326 * >> USA >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560 >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Email: >> >> > > >>> >> ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com<mailto: >> ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> Web: >> >> > > >>> >> seagull.rocketsoftware.com< >> http://www.seagull.rocketsoftware.com/ >> >> > > >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > ---- >> >> > > >>> - >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: >> >> > dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > ---- >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >> >> > dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > > --- >> >> > > >>> >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > >>> >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: >> dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > - >> >> > > >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >> dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
